State of California has petitioned the Supreme court in Rinehart decision

[Bnugget]

The state of California has now asked the California Supreme Court to overturn the Court of Appeal ruling in favor of Rinehart.

See the petition here.

Http://Peoplevrinehart.org/

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Jason in Enid]

How can the state legally involve the supreme court without an actual trial verdict to act upon? The appeals court simply said "no state, you must go back and allow the defendant to have his say and get a court decision."

 

[Prospector70]

"The State of California"
Indeed... what a state it's in, where the governance looks to limit your god given rights as an American Citizen.
Only vee kin tell you vat von can do mit zee water. Heil!
Martin Bormann would be so proud...

Keep up the good fight Rinehart!

 

[dredgeman]

Anything to delay or prolong for money and control.

Your case is the important one that they didn't see coming. Keep up the good work

Everyone who can donate on the link in the first post to help him out.

 

[H&F909ORO]

If they started to allow permits for dredging back in California would they have a limited number of permits? Considering how prolonging the ban has been you might have to jump through a few hundred hoops in order to get that permit if they happened to allow dredging again.

Since I'm still a bit of a novice at mining overall and have never dredged a minute in my life, what would dredging bring to the community of miners? Besides amazing gold and income for quite a few miners what will it initially do?

Just curious on the whole idea of dredging as I would love to do some myself, but of course it could be a while till I get the chance to.

 

[dredgeman]

If they started to allow permits for dredging back in California would they have a limited number of permits? Considering how prolonging the ban has been you might have to jump through a few hundred hoops in order to get that permit if they happened to allow dredging again.

Since I'm still a bit of a novice at mining overall and have never dredged a minute in my life, what would dredging bring to the community of miners? Besides amazing gold and income for quite a few miners what will it initially do?

Just curious on the whole idea of dredging as I would love to do some myself, but of course it could be a while till I get the chance to.

At the moment that depends on how the cases go in San Bernardino and what the outcome of the settlement hearings produce.
If dredging comes back the Rinehart case will have the weight of the appeals court. That the state cannot materially interfere with how you commercially mine your claim

 

[winners58]

That’s insane and full of errors the SEIR states No significant impacts on Salmon if best management practices are followed
and Fish & Game have a completed the permit and still no mining, its an out right ban on suction dredge mining.

 

[goldenIrishman]

The state is running scarred now and is grasping at straws. They know that they have no right to control mining on federal lands and this is yet another ploy to pull the wool over the miners eyes in a hope that we as a whole will roll over and let them have their way. If this does end up going before the U.S. Supreme Court, the state will get slapped down hard.

like Jason said... How can the state kick it up to the State Supreme Court when no verdict has been rendered in the case to start with? Sounds to me like they're getting the cart before the horse all in an effort to scare Brandon into giving up.

 

[Bnugget]

Thanks for the support everyone, don't worry Give up is not in my vocabulary. I am in agreement we have the State running scared and their throwing s#*t at the wall and hoping it sticks. My attorney James is compiling our response and I'll have it posted on my site.

 

[Oakview2]

They cannot limit the number of permits as that would be a prohibition for those who have federal claims and wish to develop their stream deposits with suction minning. They is a Hail Mary to try and stop the process, and make Brandon start over at the superior court. This is all or nothing for them, they will get their arse handed to them in a Premption trial and they know it. Soon as I get the first installment of my kids tution, I will be sending your attorney whatever I can scrape together.

 

[Oakview2]

We should get the New 49ers to schedule a dredge in at the Klamath, to protest the illegal actions of the state, and donate all gold recovered to the legal fight.... JMHO

 

[jog]

Class action lawsuit.......................................

 

[Oakview2]

I like that even better

 

[jog]

FLETCHER
v.
PECK.
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87, 6 Cranch 87, 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810)​

Supreme Court of the United States
February Term, 1810

No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.

A bill of attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both.In this form the power of the legislature over the lives and fortunes of individuals is expressly restrained. What motive, then, for implying, in words which import a general prohibition to impair the obligation of contracts, an exception in favor of the right to impair the obligation of those contracts into which the state may enter?The state legislatures can pass no ex post facto law. An ex post facto law is one which renders an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed. Such a law may inflict penalties on the person, or may inflict pecuniary penalties which swell the public treasury. The legislature is then prohibited from passing a law by which a man's estate, or any part of it, shall be seized for a crime which was not declared, by some previous law, to render him liable to that punishment. Why, then, should violence be done to the natural meaning of words for the purpose of leaving to the legislature the power of seizing, for public use, the estate of an individual in the form of a law annulling the title by which he holds that estate?

 

[DizzyDigger]

JOG, can you explain what a "...bill of attainder..." is?

Never heard the term before.

 

[Bonaro]

The State wants the SC to reverse it opinion that the State does not have jurisdiction over the Feds....LOL...why would they do that?

 

[Lanny in AB]

Very interesting read. Seems like a slam-dunk for Rinehart when and if the Supreme Court gets the call.

California should have to repay all of his court costs, pay a huge fine to boot, reimburse legal fees to every miner that's taken action against the State over this nonsense, pay restitution through back-pay to all miners whose annual income has been cut off because of all of this BS, etc. etc., so that the State of California never ever thinks to meddle with Federal Law again.

All the best,

Lanny

 

[DizzyDigger]

I've always been a big supporter of states rights, but in this
case Calif. has screwed the pooch...they're gonna lose, big time.
This is a Federal matter, and the state has no legal standing on
the matter as far as I understand.

Consider the precedents this is going to set....and not just in mining.

 

[fishnfacts]

A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself. Bills of attainder were used in England between about 1300 and 1800 and resulted in the executions of a number of notable historical figures. However, the use of these bills eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly separation of powers, the right to due process, and the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group. For these reasons, bills of attainder are expressly banned by the United States Constitution as well as the constitutions of all 50 US states.

 

[russau]

Consider the precedents this is going to set....and not just in mining.[/QUOTE]

also think of the power of this win in other states that are trying to copy Californias lead in trying to take our rights away! The Rinehart win will be a major stepping stone for all to follow! expect anything from these wacoenviromentalists and their puppets in politics!